Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z

TKalbfus wrote:

How about a nuclear upper stage?, this would reduce the propellant requirement.
More mass can then be devoted to the lander.

*The* lander? Are we doing Apollo again?

(TKalbfus) wrote:

So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares launchers,
or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(TKalbfus) wrote:

So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares
launchers,
or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?

That's what this newsgroup is for. Stopping halfway involves overhead and
we would need big boosters to put something at the halfway point.

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.

Doesn't cheap and easy make sense?

Mike Rhino wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

(TKalbfus) wrote:


So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares

launchers,

or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?


That's what this newsgroup is for. Stopping halfway involves overhead and
we would need big boosters to put something at the halfway point.


We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.


Doesn't cheap and easy make sense?



Back in 1962, there were essentially no viable launchers for payload
of the sizes we needed, even for EOR. So, if you are designing a
vehicle at that point, do you build one small or large? There is
essentially very little difference in the design time for developing
either launcher, but the smaller launcher would also require and
R&D program for assembly in orbit. Cheap and easy meant the fewest
developmental steps. These days, that means concentrating effort
on payload, not launcher technology.

TKalbfus wrote:
None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.


Or how about standing up 4 of these launchers side by side on the launch pad
and lash them together so they can lift a 100 tone payload to orbit?


That is an extra development layer. Not really that necessary.

Earth orbit rendevous means lingering in orbit for a while exposed to space
junk while your waiting to get the other pieces up. You have to put pieces A,
B, C, and D together. What if there is something wrong with piece B, that only
becomes apparent once it reaches orbit? A, C, and D are just fine, so they wait
in orbit, getting exposed to more space junk while a replacement for be is
assembled and another launcher is built to launch it. The comes the process of
assembly.

Umm. Assembly is just for the transfer vehicles. Everything going to
the moon for the moon is nothing but payload until it reaches the moon.
The transfer vehicle can be assembled with only a few flights. The main
thing is that the transfer vehicle be reusable which means fewer
flights than with a system using one-launcher per trip to the moon.
There is very little reason for a direct throw to the Moon if you can
cut down the expenses of getting to LEO.


Send the astroworkers into orbit, these people aren't going to the
moon, their task is to assemble the moonship. They better have brought all the
tools their going to need. The process needs to be carefully choriographed in
swimming pools with mockups. The Lunar geologists await on Earth while the
mission of assemble goes on. The mission in this case begins with assembly
rather than a launch.



You're making the implicit assumption that they would assemle every
flight separately. They only assemble transfer vehicles. After that,
they are switching to a system that switches payload from the launcher
from Earth to a transfer vehicle heading to the moon.

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
TKalbfus wrote:
None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.


Or how about standing up 4 of these launchers side by side on the launch
pad
and lash them together so they can lift a 100 tone payload to orbit?


That is an extra development layer. Not really that necessary.

Earth orbit rendevous means lingering in orbit for a while exposed to
space
junk while your waiting to get the other pieces up. You have to put
pieces A,
B, C, and D together. What if there is something wrong with piece B,
that only
becomes apparent once it reaches orbit? A, C, and D are just fine, so
they wait
in orbit, getting exposed to more space junk while a replacement for be
is
assembled and another launcher is built to launch it. The comes the
process of
assembly.

Umm. Assembly is just for the transfer vehicles. Everything going to
the moon for the moon is nothing but payload until it reaches the moon.
The transfer vehicle can be assembled with only a few flights. The main
thing is that the transfer vehicle be reusable which means fewer
flights than with a system using one-launcher per trip to the moon.
There is very little reason for a direct throw to the Moon if you can
cut down the expenses of getting to LEO.

Does a transfer vehicle fly in a figure 8 orbit or does it expend fuel to
get from LEO to the moon, expend more fuel to slow down to lunar orbital
speed, expend more fuel to reach Earth, and then expend fuel to slow down to
LEO orbital speed? Is that more efficient? An expendable ship can use air
braking, but a reusable transfer vehicle can't. Does a transfer vehicle
land on the moon? In order to reach LEO, astronauts would have to be in
something. Why not send that something all the way to the moon?

You may be advocating developing OSP and then going to the moon with that.
I'm advocating not developing OSP and instead developing something that
flies straight to the moon. If the plan is to send many astronauts to LEO
orbit and 2 to the moon, then the OSP route is more efficient. My plan is
the opposite of that. I would like to concentrate on the moon and pretty
much abandon LEO. If a lunar program is more than flags and footprints,
then the cost of developing a new booster should be trivial.

It is possible launch fuel into orbit and use it to refuel a ship. It is
also possible to launch fuel with the ship. Either way, you have to launch
fuel. Would one way be more efficient than the other?

All this is not going to happen. What is needed is a completely new
concept to get to the Moon.


Why, the object is to get to the Moon, not to revolutionize space travel. We
already know how to get to the Moon. We have the plans for the Saturn V. The
fastest way to get their is to tread on well trod ground. Assembling things ins
space takes a long time. Just look at the ISS. EVA time is at a premium, and
its better to spend it on the Moon rather than building things in space.

Tom

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
All this is not going to happen. What is needed is a completely new
concept to get to the Moon.


Why, the object is to get to the Moon, not to revolutionize space travel.
We
already know how to get to the Moon. We have the plans for the Saturn V.
The
fastest way to get their is to tread on well trod ground. Assembling
things ins
space takes a long time. Just look at the ISS. EVA time is at a premium,
and
its better to spend it on the Moon rather than building things in space.

Tom

As far as the plans for the Saturn V go, does NASA actually have them? I
heard a story a few years back that NASA doesn't actually have a complete
set. At the time the Saturn V rockets were designed and built, some of the
details weren't on paper but rather were in the heads of the designers and
builders. Even if all of the physical drawings exist, I wonder if there
weren't special assembly procedures that are undocumented.

My guess is that if NASA goes back to the moon, it'll take at least as much
time and 2-3 times as much money (even corrected for inflation) as it did
the first time. NASA's human spaceflight program has concentrated on low
earth orbit for so long and many of the leading brains of the Apollo-era are
gone. I don't think that the shuttle is feasible for a moon mission (unless
you're using it to support a staging point in LEO) and for reasons above I
wonder if NASA could build the Saturn V without a major re-learning effort.
I think it needs to be a joint mission with other countries and that we
should look at some of the Russian heavy lift capabilities, perhaps even
mixing and matching platforms depending on what needs to be lifted where and
when. Another way to look at is to define the lift requirements in top-down
fashion, i.e., instead of saying "we've got X heavy-lift platforms, how can
we use them?" say "this is what's needed, do any of the platforms meet the
requirements?".

-mc

Mike Rhino wrote:
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

TKalbfus wrote:

None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.


Or how about standing up 4 of these launchers side by side on the launch

pad

and lash them together so they can lift a 100 tone payload to orbit?


That is an extra development layer. Not really that necessary.


Earth orbit rendevous means lingering in orbit for a while exposed to

space

junk while your waiting to get the other pieces up. You have to put

pieces A,

B, C, and D together. What if there is something wrong with piece B,

that only

becomes apparent once it reaches orbit? A, C, and D are just fine, so

they wait

in orbit, getting exposed to more space junk while a replacement for be

is

assembled and another launcher is built to launch it. The comes the

process of

assembly.

Umm. Assembly is just for the transfer vehicles. Everything going to
the moon for the moon is nothing but payload until it reaches the moon.
The transfer vehicle can be assembled with only a few flights. The main
thing is that the transfer vehicle be reusable which means fewer
flights than with a system using one-launcher per trip to the moon.
There is very little reason for a direct throw to the Moon if you can
cut down the expenses of getting to LEO.


Does a transfer vehicle fly in a figure 8 orbit or does it expend fuel to
get from LEO to the moon, expend more fuel to slow down to lunar orbital
speed, expend more fuel to reach Earth, and then expend fuel to slow down to
LEO orbital speed? Is that more efficient? An expendable ship can use air
braking, but a reusable transfer vehicle can't. Does a transfer vehicle
land on the moon? In order to reach LEO, astronauts would have to be in
something. Why not send that something all the way to the moon?



What makes you think a reusable can't use aerobraking?

If you build something that goes from the Earth to the Moon in oneshot,
then you have to build a vehicle that is operational in all phases. So,
the vehicle travelling between the Earth and the Moon would have to
include all the aerodynamic pieces. For 99.9% of it's time, it would
be somewhere where is it lifting a lot of deadweight. That is a lot
less efficient fuelwise than designing against the specific flight
regimes.

You may be advocating developing OSP and then going to the moon with that.
I'm advocating not developing OSP and instead developing something that
flies straight to the moon. If the plan is to send many astronauts to LEO
orbit and 2 to the moon, then the OSP route is more efficient. My plan is
the opposite of that. I would like to concentrate on the moon and pretty
much abandon LEO. If a lunar program is more than flags and footprints,
then the cost of developing a new booster should be trivial.


Who said anything about OSP? OSP is just a specific vehicle. The Moon
program is a program. The program uses the specific tools available.
The question is whether it can do it's tasks with existing launchers
and capabilities. There is nothing inherent in going to the Moon, or any
other body, the dictates an HLV of Saturn capacity.

It is possible launch fuel into orbit and use it to refuel a ship. It is
also possible to launch fuel with the ship. Either way, you have to launch
fuel. Would one way be more efficient than the other?



The one that moves the least deadweight over the flight regime. It will
take far more fuel to move all the aerodynamic materials to and from the
Moon than concentrating on the specific radically different flight
regimes.

Can you think of a reason that somethign travelling from LEO to the
Moon would require a parachute? Or aerodynamic control surfaces? Why
factor that weight into something that does not need it?

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.


Cheap and easy are what get the mission accomplished. Expensive and hard may
lead to an abandoned project. The ISS is an example of the opposite of the
Apollo program.

Tom